Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-17866-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2024 14:11:35 +0100
From: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
To: Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>
Cc: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>, ltp@lists.linux.it,
	Li Wang <liwang@redhat.com>,
	Andrea Cervesato <andrea.cervesato@suse.com>,
	Greg Ungerer <gerg@linux-m68k.org>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
	John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>,
	Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>,
	linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	linux-riscv <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
	Linux-sh list <linux-sh@vger.kernel.org>,
	automated-testing@lists.yoctoproject.org, buildroot@buildroot.org
Subject: Call for nommu LTP maintainer [was: Re: [PATCH 00/36] Remove UCLINUX
 from LTP]
Message-ID: <20240105131135.GA1484621@pevik>
Reply-To: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
References: <20240103015240.1065284-1-pvorel@suse.cz>
 <CAMuHMdXGwyS-CL0vLdUP4Z4YEYhmcmDyC3YdGCnS=jFkqASqvw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240103114957.GD1073466@pevik>
 <CAMuHMdX0s0gLRoPtjJmDnSmZ_MNY590dN+JxM1HKAL1g_bjX+w@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZZVOhlGPg5KRyS-F@yuki>
 <5a1f1ff3-8a61-67cf-59a9-ce498738d912@landley.net>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5a1f1ff3-8a61-67cf-59a9-ce498738d912@landley.net>

Hi all,

[ Cc also automated-testing and buildroot ML
FYI thread started here:
https://lore.kernel.org/ltp/20240103015240.1065284-1-pvorel@suse.cz/ ]

> On 1/3/24 06:09, Cyril Hrubis wrote:
> > Hi!
> >> I am not sure I agree with this series.
> >> Removing support for UCLINUX from LTP is almost a guarantee for
> >> not noticing when more breakage is introduced.

> >> How exactly is UCLINUX broken in LTP?

> > As far as we know noone is using it and nobody is maintaing it for a
> > decade,

> Nobody is maintaining "uclinux" because that was a distro, but you can build
> nommu support in buildroot and such, and people do.

Right, there are nommu users. Will anybody join LTP development to maintain
nommu support in LTP? The needed work is to add this support to LTP new C API
[1] and use it in the relevant test. There is some implementation in the old
API, I have no idea how well it worked.

If nobody stands for maintaing nommu, we will have to delete it. There is nobody
from the current maintainers who is using LTP on nommu HW (that is the reason why
nommu support have not been implemented in the new API).

Kind regards,
Petr

> Rob

[1] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/wiki/C-Test-API